Socialism in Ireland

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pete

If Surely the marketplace is the best gauge of what people want? .

---

Is it though? let's try a little parable; two people, Mr. Starbucks and Mister Nobody set up coffeee shops side by side on the same street in Seattle; with a few months, its clear that Mr. Starbucks has the edge - more customers, better selection, a nicer atmosphere, and Mr. Nobody goes out of business. Fair enough, you say, and i wouldn't argue; competition on equal terms can produce a better outcome for the consumer.

Chapter 2: Mr S decides he'd like to build on his success, so he goes to a bank - or banks - and borrows money to invest in other premises; pretty soon the pattern repeats, and other coffee shops in the neighbourhoods of the new S'bucks go to the wall; except this time its not the fair fight it was in the first instance, because now, with 10 or 20 or 100 shops, Mr. S can buy his raw materials at much better prices, can operate long lines of credit which means the little Mr nobodies up against him cannot compete even if they are producing a better product.

Chapter 3: There's a starbucks on every corner in every major city in the west - they pretty much dictate the price coffee growers get, and, by making themselves into arbiters of taste they start recommending books and music to their customers - and taking a cut from the proceeds. The net effect is to cut down competition and to make it harder to get a decent coffee in some cities if you don't care for the frothy pabulum S'bucks want to sell you - I personally find their presence in Rome deeply depressing.

Or, to pick an example which is probably under your fingers at the moment - I 'm typing this on a PC running windows in UCD; both the hardware and the operating system are worse in every respect than the Mac* I use at home - yet there's a 9 out of 10 chance that you're reading this on the same, inferior system; why? its not cheaper - Linux is - and its certainly not better; its because Capitalism, the system that is supposed to thrive on competition allows the slight edge that we saw in example one to build into massive corporate muscle because, apparently, the market is always right and it is somehow a neutral system like the weather, and interfering with it is a sin against freedom.

BTW, I never said i was against a mixed economy; I basically believe in social ownership of the means of production, but some means of production are too small or specialised for that model to work very well - you must be mixing me up with the other half of the Phibsborough Popular Front for the re-education of Cork.......

* I don't necessarily buy the Apple good, Microsoft bad dualism - but they do make nicer computers.

To use your coffee example.
Independent coffee houses still exist as they will compete at a different level. Different customer service. FairTrade has also emerged offering a different service.

If Apple was better people would buy it. Apple does not offer half the services a MS OS can offer. Linux has emerged competing at different price & different service.

In each of those examples people make their own decision to purchase from those companies. I think people perfer to make their own personal decision rather than let big brother do it. Anyway socialism will result in the same model anyway as some countries bigger & more powerful.

Independent coffee houses exist, sure, but they are not competing on level terms with a company that can buy the entire coffee bean production of Ethiopia and pretty much decide what price they'd like to pay.

And I can't believe you think people make their own decisions about Microsoft. MOst PCs are sold with the operating system already installed - a lot of people don't realise there ARE other operating systems, and because it's in microsoft's interests to keep it this way they go to an awful lot of completely anti -competitive trouble to do so. Your nightmare of choiceless socialism is actually much more the case in an increasingly monopolised capital system - if I - in a city of over a million, want to shop in a supermarket that's not Tesco i have to drive for 4 miles - if i didn't have a car I wouldn't have a choice; and thanks to Tesco, there is no independent green grocer anywhere near me - so I have to buy their over packaged, tasteless tomatoes ......

And what do you think MS offer that Apple don't? just curious

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sonofstan

its because Capitalism, the system that is supposed to thrive on competition allows the slight edge that we saw in example one to build into massive corporate muscle because, apparently, the market is always right and it is somehow a neutral system like the weather, and interfering with it is a sin against freedom.

---

Well said, this is what gets my goat about the contemporary political climate more than anything else, this concept of the market as an inviolate ecosystem which brooks no interference. The weird thing is, it's really just a development of Marxist determinism.

PS: Macs are sh1t, though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sheridan

Well said, this is what gets my goat about the contemporary political climate more than anything else, this concept of the market as an inviolate ecosystem which brooks no interference. The weird thing is, it's really just a development of Marxist determinism.

PS: Macs are sh1t, though.

---

Exactly, which is why unlike my comrade in the PPFRC (see above), I don't see a completely planned economy as either possible or desirable - the thing as well about the supposedly 'inviolate ecosystem' is that government and supra- governmental organisations - The Federal Reserve, ECB, the World bank - will damn well interfere when its in their perceived interest; its only inviolate when the end of interference is social.

A lot of this debate seems to be turning into middle class socialism like the Irish Labour Party.

I know Tesco are big & powerful but they achieved that against bigger competitors in the Uk (have a look where Tesco were even 10 years ago) because they offer better price & service. If that wasn't the case why would people use it? Green grocers never stayed open at night.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pete

A lot of this debate seems to be turning into middle class socialism like the Irish Labour Party.

I know Tesco are big & powerful but they achieved that against bigger competitors in the Uk (have a look where Tesco were even 10 years ago) because they offer better price & service. If that wasn't the case why would people use it? Green grocers never stayed open at night.

---

My examples were simply to point out that the competition that you think is the engine of capitalism and progress generally has consequences which are less than progressive or in the interests of the choice and value you think is important ...... and like your defense of Microsoft your defense of Tesco is incredible - in larges areas of the country people shop there because they've no choice, not because its any better

Why is this 'middle- class' socialism? do the working classes not go to Tesco and buy Computers? anyway, I'm not suggesting the socialist millenium will have arrives when we've got better shops and we break Microsoft - I was just trying to show that the competition that you think is the hallmark of capitalism doesn't work

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sheridan

it's really just a development of Marxist determinism.
.

---

Have to pull you up on this mate. Marxism is not deterministic. Sure the text books tel you that but they dwell on one side of Marxist theory. Marxism is dialectical. In fact dialectical materialism (What Marx called his theory) stands in direct opposition to determinist materialism. Bernstein, the German social democrat developed a revisionist theory of Marxism that stated that Capitalism would inevitably give way to Socialism thus negating the need for revolutionary parties. It is this strand of the early workers movement that finds its logical conclusion in the ideologies of the modern day labour/social democratic parties who have accepted the market. Bernstein the determinist was a precursor to Blair. Revolutionary Marxism has always rejected determinism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BohsPartisan

Have to pull you up on this mate. Marxism is not deterministic. Sure the text books tel you that but they dwell on one side of Marxist theory. Marxism is dialectical.

---

Haven't read a whole lot of Marx, but isn't the dialectical part constituted by the clash between capitalists and proletarians, with a (genuinely) communist society being the outcome of the dialectical clash?

It's not just the textbooks that suggest Marx is deterministic: he does it himself, when he suggests (for example) that capitalists "create their own gravediggers" by oppressing the proletariat.

Dialectical Materialsm has many constituent parts, the clash of classes is only part of that. You are correct that Marx said that the Capitalist system creates its own gravediggers but he also says that without a conscious element showing them where to dig they won't get very far. This is the dialectical interpenetration of opposites in action. Similarly Marx said
"Man creates his own existance only in circumstances not under his control".

and "Necessity is blind until it becomes conscious. Freedom is the consciousness of necessity."

"It is not "history" which uses men as a means of achieving -- as if it were an individual person -- its own ends. History is nothing but the activity of men in pursuit of their ends"

Men make history, this history makes men who make history and this history makes men (and women of course) who make history.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BohsPartisan

"Man creates his own existance only in circumstances not under his control".

and "Necessity is blind until it becomes conscious. Freedom is the consciousness of necessity."

"It is not "history" which uses men as a means of achieving -- as if it were an individual person -- its own ends. History is nothing but the activity of men in pursuit of their ends"

.

---

I don't see that these quotes show that Marx didn't have a deterministic outlook. The first one seems to me to say only that there can be circumstances outside of our control (and that's compatible with determinism); the second doesn't deny necessity, it only says that necessity is blind (i.e., unaware of itself) until we become conscious of it; and the final quote simply denies agency to history, which, again, is compatible with a deterministic outlook.
You've obviously read more Marx than I have, so I wouldn't presume to say you're wrong here, but these particular quotes don't seem to make your case.

What I am trying to illustrate that Marx saw a role for the individual in shaping history, that is contrary to a deterministic outlook. Determinism is where history is shaped by blind forces that we have no control over eg. God or the Market, or in the case of the determinist early "social democrats" who would have described themselves as Marxists, history itself would dictate the inevitable progression towards Socialism. It was in response to Bernstein's determinist revisionism that Marx declared "if this is Marxism then I am not a Marxist". Engels wrote a critique of revisionist "Marxist" determinism in Anti-Duhring.
The opposite of a determinist view of history is the belief that "great individuals" shape history and external forces play no part. Genuine Marxism is somewhere in between and contains elements of both versions of history which is why I said it was an example of the dialectical law of the "interpenetration of opposites".

Best explanation of dialectics I can remember is from our history teacher in school:

1. Take a thesis (i.e. an idea or a proposition)
2. Take its antithesis (i.e. a directly contradictory or opposing idea)
3. From the meeting of the two will flow a synthesis
The process by which this happens is dialectics.

I see that America is about to vote in their first Socialist Senator in Bernie Sanders from Vermont. It's a pretty significant piece of history if you ask me, although I don't know too much about the guy, so I'll this link do the talking :)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/midterms20...937064,00.html

Stayed up Saturday night and watched the box-set of "Boys form the Blackstuff" my dad got me (Insert joke about lack of life here)

Absolutely amazing. I strongly suggest anyone with even a passing interest in the issues in this thread lay hands on it asap

Theres a new book/pamphlet out which is very relevent to this thread and anyone who is interesting in getting an understanding of what Marxism means in the 21st century. Its called "Marxism in Today's World" and it is in Q&A form. The questioners are a couple of Italian guys who would describe themselves as Marxists but would have a very different approach to key questions than the Socialist Party/Committee for a Workers' International. The intervewee is Peter Taafe, veteran Socialist (and Everton fan!) who is the General Secretary of The Socialist Party of England and Wales (Our sister party over there).
Seeing as how a lot of this thread was focussed on where the Socialist Party stand on many issues, I thought this would be of interest for the non-socialists here as much as the socialists.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BohsPartisan

Theres a new book/pamphlet out which is very relevent to this thread and anyone who is interesting in getting an understanding of what Marxism means in the 21st century. Its called "Marxism in Today's World" and it is in Q&A form.

---

£5 :eek: :o

Hardly extortionate now is it compared to the price of books in Waterstones or Easons. These things cost a lot of money to print and as the print run wouldn't be massive it costs more than if you are running off thousands of copies of a bestseller.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BohsPartisan

Hardly extortionate now is it compared to the price of books in Waterstones or Easons. These things cost a lot of money to print and as the print run wouldn't be massive it costs more than if you are running off thousands of copies of a bestseller.

---

Wasn't being smart man

It's just as one of those working class far left types I genuinely don't have a spare fiver for a pamplet this week :o

I'm sure it is a good read

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WeAreRovers

if Militant had won that particular battle the Tories would still be in power. Then again, you're lot are just a rebranded Millies are you not?

KOH

---

That is one of the great myths created by Kinnock. Who is in power now? Oh they call themselves labour but are they? They are Tories in all but name. Same policies same interests. Same lies. Same vile sleazebags controlling stuff.
The fact is, Labours best election performances of the 80's were in areas where Militant were strongest - Particularly Liverpool - where the Militant led Labour council transformed the lives of working class people. Look at the stats if you get the chance. It blows that arguement out of the water.
In fact if it wasn't for Militant, Thatcher would have lasted a lot longer than she did. It was the Anti-Poll tax campaign that finished her. Who led that? Militant.
And yes we are Militant rebranded. I for one am proud to be part of the traditon that fought Thatcherism when that jaundiced tosser Kinnock was bending over backwards to the whims of the daily mail. The fact that Kilroy Silk was part of his entourage says it all.

Check out Militant and The Story of the Liverpool Struggle